Online Program

291747
Marketing social marketing to state health departments: Formative research for improving the nation's health


Wednesday, November 6, 2013 : 10:50 a.m. - 11:10 a.m.

Brian J. Biroscak, PhD, MS, MA, Florida Prevention Research Center, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
R. Craig Lefebvre, PhD, RTI International, Sarasota, FL
James H. Lindenberger, BA, Social Marketing Group, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
Robert J. Marshall, PhD, MA, Department of Health Services, Policy & Practice, Brown University, School of Public Health, Providence, RI
Robert J. McDermott, PhD, FASHA, Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI
Healthy People 2020 Health Communication and Health Information Technology (HC/HIT) Objective 13.1 reads: “Increase the proportion of State health departments that report using social marketing in health promotion and disease prevention programs.” Achievement of this objective requires formative research to ‘market social marketing.' Pilot research with states' public information officers revealed significant confusion regarding terminology (e.g., “social media” vs. “social marketing”). Consequently, we employed two overlapping strategies: (1) survey of information officers to identify health promotion and disease prevention programs and (2) survey of those program managers to identify social marketing activities meeting one or more of the 8 National Social Marketing Centre benchmark criteria. Standardized scores were computed for the 8 benchmarks. Overall, 35 of 50 states' information officers participated (70%) as did 29 program managers (83%). States' health promotion and disease prevention programs reflected an average of 4.6 social marketing benchmarks (median = 4.5; range of 0-8). Eight state health departments met all benchmarks, placing the Healthy People 2020 baseline at 28%. The target for HC/HIT Objective 13.1 is that 38% (baseline plus 10%) of state health departments use social marketing by year 2020. In the interim, we have received Institutional Review Board clearance to proceed with additional formative research. We will be exploring findings presented here—e.g., 26 participants endorsed a global question about social marketing usage but only 7 of 26 met all benchmarks—as well as conducting problem identification research to inform a national strategy for achievement of this important objective.

Learning Areas:

Administer health education strategies, interventions and programs
Chronic disease management and prevention
Implementation of health education strategies, interventions and programs
Planning of health education strategies, interventions, and programs
Protection of the public in relation to communicable diseases including prevention or control
Social and behavioral sciences

Learning Objectives:
Define 'Healthy People 2020' Health Communication and Health Information Technology (HC/HIT) Objective 13.1. Describe the challenges associated with measuring social marketing usage in state health departments' health promotion and disease prevention programs. Discuss the merits of a social marketing approach for state health departments' health promotion and disease prevention programs.

Keyword(s): Social Marketing, Health Promotion

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

Qualified on the content I am responsible for because: I was involved with the design and execution of the research presented herein. I am pursuing a doctoral degree in public health with a specialization in social marketing. I also worked as an epidemiologist at departments of public health for six years.
Any relevant financial relationships? No

I agree to comply with the American Public Health Association Conflict of Interest and Commercial Support Guidelines, and to disclose to the participants any off-label or experimental uses of a commercial product or service discussed in my presentation.